The origin of vertebrate teeth and evolution of sensory exoskeletons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The earliest record of tooth antecedents and the tissue dentine1,2, an early-vertebrate novelty, has been controversially represented by fragmentary Cambrian fossils identified as Anatolepis heintzi3–5. Anatolepis exoskeletons have the characteristic tubules of dentine that prompted their interpretation as the first precursors of teeth3, known as odontodes. Debates over whether Anatolepis is a legitimate vertebrate6–8 have arisen because of limitations in imaging and the lack of comparative exoskeletal tissues. Here, to resolve this controversy and understand the origin of dental tissues, we synchrotron-scanned diverse extinct and extant vertebrate and invertebrate exoskeletons. We find that the tubules of Anatolepis have been misidentified as dentine tubules and instead represent aglaspidid arthropod sensory sensilla structures9,10. Synchrotron scanning reveals that deep ultrastructural similarities between odontodes and sensory structures also extend to definitive vertebrate tissues. External odontodes of the Ordovician vertebrate Eriptychius11–13 feature large dentine tubules1 that are morphologically convergent with invertebrate sensilla. Immunofluorescence analysis shows that the external odontodes of extant chondrichthyans and teleosts retain extensive innervation suggestive of a sensory function akin to teeth14–16. These patterns of convergence and innervation reveal that dentine evolved as a sensory tissue in the exoskeleton of early vertebrates, a function retained in modern vertebrate teeth16. Middle-Ordovician fossils now represent the oldest known evidence for vertebrate dental tissues. Re-examination of the presumed Cambrian fossil fish Anatolepis reveals previous misidentification of aglaspidid sensory structures as dentine, a vertebrate sensory tissue, showing it to be an arthropod, and shifting the origin of vertebrate hard tissues to the Middle Ordovician.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".